Clevo + Coffee Lake: Status?

Please hit up my posts with my U3 mod. The processor in my P870 can idle same as ambient temp and even 1c degrees under ambient with forced max fans + my U3 mod as I always use. You find pics in some of my mod U3 posts!! I have done a lot tweaking for having lowest possible temp on my hardware. You may not have seen it (several posts). Cherry picking benchmarks? I can tell you this my good friend, there isn't big difference between benchmarks running with same clocks. Maybe for BGA junk with inadequate cooling and thin and flimsy but not in laptops with *normal* sized chassis. Same for desktops.
FYI. The link with benchmarks you posted from the 6820 BGA Crap, is the highest they measure in every review of laptops. That's cherry picking. Notebookcheck doesn't use average or lowest for their database!! Please don't spread wrong info, bruh.

 

to all non-believers that bga is trashy, mr fox just posted the results and comparison, papusan just posted the cost.

for the ones that says need to compare in similar rig, well the tests in CPU benchmark says it all, under similar frequency, at higher end frequency especially, mobile chip cant take it, they are all in laptop. this is the truth and fact.

1070 isnt high end though, i can do so much more with two 1080 in sli, for example triple display 2-4k gaming, so gud.

 

1070 is definitely high-end.

Let's use the current line-up to define price range and performance.

1. Ultra-low-end/iGPU, <$50: Intel HD 630, For those who need to render the Windows UI and that's it.
2. Low-end, $50-$100: AMD RX 550, nVidia MX 150, GT 1030, Intel Iris/Iris Pro, AMD APU
3. Low mid-range, $100-$200: AMD RX 560, RX 570, nVidia GTX 1050, 1050 Ti
4. Mid-range, $200-$300: AMD RX 580, nVidia GTX 1060
5. Upper mid-range, $300-$400: nVidia GTX 1070, AMD RX Vega 56
6. High-end, $400-600: nVidia GTX 1080, AMD RX Vega 64
7. Very high-end, $600-$800: nVidia GTX 1080 Ti
8. Ultra-high-end, >$800: nVidia GTX Titan XP, SLI GTX 1080/1080 Ti

Your set-up, for just the graphics-cards and monitors alone (assuming each 1440p monitor is around $300) will cost around $2500, more than entire PCs.

I can bet you anything that 90% of the people on Steam have GPUs that fit in categories 3, 4 and 5, with video cards from past generations slotting in based on their performance respectively. So a GTX 980 Ti, even though it cost $600-$800 at launch, would be in category 5.

 

I don't understand you, bruh. Your own words in same/previous post.

1. Mid-range, $200-$300: AMD RX 580, nVidia GTX 1060
2. Upper mid-range, $300-$400:nVidia GTX 1070, AMD RX Vega 56
3. High-end, $400-600: nVidia GTX 1080, AMD RX Vega 64

 

My bad. It is not high-end within the current stack.

But if we take into account that there are plenty of people with GTX 750 Tis, GTX 970s, GTX 560 Tis (!!), GTX 580s (my 860M is faster and only draws 75 W), and given the population ratio of GPUs, the 1070 is high-end. It can run any game you throw at it at 1440p 60 FPS. That is 100% high-end.

 

heres a better list from real enthusiasts, not for jokers and high end enthusiasts wanna be.

1. theres no ultra-high-end laptop GPU, because in desktop they can always have more and as an enthusiast it should always be compared to desktop performance.
2. 1080 SLI is the current high end.
3. everything else is low end, 1070 is probably considered as mid range for some.

 

And that's for people who use their money as toilet paper.

For ordinary people, 1050 Ti is budget, 1060 is mid-range, 1070 is more than enough, 1080 is high-end, 1080 Ti SLI is stupid, and Titan is plain idiotic.

 

know the hardware you buy and put full use to it, if you can put 1080 sli to good use then its not stupid at all. i mean if you're only getting 1060 or 1070 then you dont really need 4 cores cpu, a regular highly clocked 2 cores will be fine and you can still call that high end lol, which by your words, it is, because "ordinary" people dont use computers for game.

imho, when determining whats high end hardware or not, people should not go for their preference, because there are clearly much better hardware out there.

well im no enthusiast because i have seen some crazy **** people do with hardware which even i think its ridiculous. like benching off LN or SS cooling, and i dont do those. i just simply want good enough hardware for most tasks especially on CPU and SSDs i want them to be damn good. can't have damn good if they are BGA, NOPE.

 

We need a CoffeLake-S Prema Mod

 

Seems to be the same socket 1151

https://videocardz.com/71740/intel-core-i7-8700k-pictured-i3-8350-and-i3-8100-specs-leaked

 

wow you know what caught my attention is 6c 4.3ghz at ~10% lower power usage than 4c 4.5ghz thats crazy. 6c 5ghz seems more and more possible now!

maybe intel isnt really bs'ing and 14nm++ really does has some good stuff that come with it. either that or intel manipulated us to made us think they gave us awesome 14nm+ but in fact they kept the best of best silicon for 14nm++ and gave us junk, milk to the max style.

 

Intel Core i7-8700K Benchmarks Show a 6 Core CPU Blazing Past AMD’s 8 Core Ryzen 7 1700 and Intel’s 6 Core HEDT Core i7-7800X CPU

 

" The chip will be compatible with the LGA 1151 socket and rumors are that board makers will extend support of Coffee Lake onto 200-series and even 100-series platforms."

We call him 'the best bios modder ever' ... not board maker

 

u guys notice the new leak? CB15 ST performance, 8700k 4.7ghz score 191 while 7700k 4.5ghz score 193. compare to the original leak 8700k score 218 and 7700k scored 200

 

See my post HERE!!

FYI. 200 ain't correct for stock 7700K. Too high!! More correct is 193-197.

 

I wouldn't trust WCCFTech...

 

even so, 191 for a 4.7ghz for 8700k seems kinda low assuming same uarch. not to mention 3rd party original leak is 218 lol

 

Put it the other way... If so, had Intel any choice? AMD push 8 core mainstream. Higher clocks vs. AMD ain't enough

Kaby 4.7GHz CB15 ST performance. 191 for Coffee isn't where it should be. Lack of optimization or a broken scores. Can't be zero IPC

 

I don't know how WCCFTech says the 8700K 'blazes' past the R7 1700, and much less the 7700K. Sure, single thread is quite a fair bit faster than AMD's offering (which has already been established) but it's hardly faster than the 7700K in some benchmarks and the multi-threaded scores are all over the place.

Neither a reliable nor accurate conclusion. That is why WCCFTech cannot be trusted.

 

Or the choice of benchmarks.

 

I have 192-193 single thread points with default 7700K. Most of the benchmark time at 4.4 GHz, only briefly at 4.5 GHz.

 

Yoo may not see it correctly due too slow polling frequency Cores shift between, incredible fast.

 

thats great thanks for clearing it up. since i dont got a 7700k for that matter no way for me to confirm anything. so 193ish default 4.5ghz ST CB15.

 

Still looking for an option? I'm still waiting for Coffee Lake to be out by at least october

 

That and the turbo for different numbers of active cores is different and if windows uses another thread for another process another core gets activated.

 

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3806297 Almost as powerful as my old 5820K .

 

https://hothardware.com/news/intel-core-i7-8700k-coffee-lake-i5-8400-cpus-sisoft-sandra-benchmark

Here are the numbers we are looking at, along with how they compare to aggregated Core i7-7700K results in SiSoftware's SANDRA database:

• Processor Arithmetic: 217.98 GOPS (versus 149.99 GOPS)—45 percent increase
• Processor Multi-Media: 658.57 Mpix/s (versus 447.76 Mpix/s)—47 percent increase
• Processor Cryptography: 10.47 GB/s (versus 9.34 GB/s)—12 percent increase
• Scientific Analysis (Single Precision): 61.41 GFLOPS (versus 48.51 GFLOPS)—26 percent increase
• Scientific Analysis (Double Precision): 32.11 GFLOPS (versus 24.40 GFLOPS)—32 percent increase

Collectively we are looking at around a 32.4 percent jump in performance. We also see that Intel's claimed performance figures are not too far off. That is encouraging, especially if you have been holding off on upgrading in hopes that Coffee Lake would bring enough of a boost over whatever architecture you are currently running.

 

32.4% increase in scores with 50% more cores + increased IPC vs. 7700K isn't encouraging. Not at all!!

 

As long as they keep the same TDP, it is, it's all about performance per watt.

 

Will we see 8xxxU in gaming PCs? Will HQ/HK CPUs be marketed as enthusiast class and priced heavily as well?

 

95 vs. 91W. And for what I have seen... Coffee already give higher performance per watt vs. Kaby. The performance increase in showed benchmark is no, no good. Same as I oc'd 50% and only got 32% higher Cinbench scores vs stock 7700K Need optimization for Cpu or the used bench software. Or the bench scores is off. Aka less performance than expected.

Isn't all hardware marketed as enthusiasts class nowadays? The low end 6700Hq - 7700Hq is mentioned/claimed as High end in a lot reviews today

 

Sadly yes.

 

Intel and OEMs rely on people's stupidity/low knowledge about high performance hardware when they push out new tech!!

 

Any CPU with i7 in its name is considered top notch by most people with mainstream knowledge about computers they wont be able to tell the difference between an i7 7500U and a 7700k, all they see is that it's got an i7.

I've seen the i7 7700HQ referred as an entry level i7 on several reviews though, it's just that many reviews on mainstream sites are pretty shallow when it comes to technical terms/specifications and people who read them aren't really interested in that stuff, so for them it boils down to i7 = top performance chips.

 

The lower the people's knowledge is... The more can they (Hardware manufacturers + OEMs) screw us with even more filthy. It's sad!! Even the reviews sites make money on low knowledge!!

 

Don't need to compare them accurately. All you need to do is identify the inferior product and scratch it off the list of acceptable options. BGA automatically goes on the list of unacceptable options without any benchmarks if you don't want crippled disposable filth in your laptop.

 

People seem to forgot that BGA is the reason (main culprit) we now have thin and flimsy with overheating as the norm. Aka the more and more used trashy new TRIPOD/TWOPOD HS design!! 4 overheating laptops TurdBook's isn't an coincidence!!

Edit. Bro @Mr. Fox It's sad seeing people being screwed!!

 

I have to ask this question as I am not sure what I should do. I have ordered the P775DM3-G 17.3" GTX 1080 & the i7 7700k CPU from HIDEve. Do you think it warrants me to cancel my order and bite the 5% fee and wait for the new 8th Gen to be available to be added to a laptop? @Mr. Fox @Papusan etc

Edit: "The information that we have now says it will NOT be upgradable due to its requiring a different chipset"

 

As always... Buy when you have a need. We don't know when new Clevo's coming with new tech!! It will take time. But If I was you... I would rather go for P870Km. But that's me, bruh. Buy always what you can afford (of course laptops with fully socket hardware) and when you need a machine.
FYI... Don't expect more than 2 gen Intel processors on same socket design.

 

@Papusan
Thanks for your reply. As of right now I do not have a laptop that I can use for gaming and such. Maybe I am just overthinking things, as I would just use the laptop for gaming and that sort of thing. The P870km is better overall in terms of what to the P775? I see that the P870 is a couple hundred dollars more, but I see that it has the added weight compared to the P775. I get that you can add another GTX 1080, better cooling as vaper chamber.

 

What's interesting is...i3 says 200 series chipset.

Wonder if it'll be possible in the future to support the i5/i7 models on 100/200 series chipsets.

 

As I said to you... P870Km all the way. Single or Sli doesn't matter. A better product. But all laptop models with fully socket hardware is the only choice vs. TurdBook's!!

 

As @Papusan said, it will take time and we have no ETA. Add more time for BIOS mods to be ready and expect stock BIOS to have performance limitations. Probably better to just go with P870 now if you can afford it. Maybe they will waive the fee if you change the order to that now.

 

You do if you're trying to claim that one chip performs worse than another chip (unless you're just trying to be wantonly deceptive by posting numbers without clarifying that they are inaccurate and, in fact, a false equivalence).

We all know you hate BGA chips but that's not a reason to be dishonest and attempt to misrepresent data.

 

So, by your logic if someone takes the Cinebench results from a 7600K and show the score next to a 7700K you think that is deceptive? If so, that's hilarious. People that are going to spend money probably ought to know what they are getting into before they make a regrettable decision.

To call it dishonest must be a projection or lack of understanding on your part. I simply show the results achieved with the superior product and let the people looking at the results decide what they want. There is nothing deceptive about it and no comparison being offered on a handicap basis. Unless a question arises, I generally never even bother to look at the numbers produced by the inferior products because I don't care what their numbers look like. They are irrelevant to me. The numbers are not inaccurate. They are real life benchmark scores. They are what they are.

The hate for BGA is entirely based on product design, not performance or lack thereof. It has nothing to do with the benchmark scores. If I had a system with a weak CPU or GPU, I would still want it those parts to be replaceable. Assuming a BGA part performed exactly the same as a modular part with the same specs, I would still view the BGA version of the product as being unacceptable.

I think it is potentially more deceptive and simply adds confusion for the less savvy minds to complicate things by using excuses, caveats or handicaps. It certainly doesn't change the results.

The post you are freaking out about was a response to one above it, to which @Papusan also replied. I think it was a legitmate response. For those that don't have a clue what you're bent out of shape about, I'll quote them again for context. The difference is much greater than 1-5%, but the comparison was not mine. I simply provided examples for others to draw their own conclusion.

That is not even feasible. If you want to compare my results, you can find me on HWBOT.org if you want to. But, I realize you're not going to post anything contrary to what you have said, so let me help you with that. Bear in mind, these are all air-cooled laptops, all of the laptop owners in the same overclocking league.

• Here is the #1 score on record in Cinebench R11.5 for 7820HK: http://hwbot.org/submission/3575641_str8_an94baller_cinebench___r11.5_core_i7_7820hk_11.59_points
  
  
• Here is my 130th place score in Cinebench R11.5 for 7700K: http://hwbot.org/submission/3614307_mr._fox_cinebench___r11.5_core_i7_7700k_12.76_points
  
  
• Here is the #1 score on record in Cinench R11.5 for 6820HK: http://hwbot.org/submission/3176127_alexy_cinebench___r11.5_core_i7_6820hk_10.21_points
  
  
• Here is my 211th place score in Cinebench R11.5 for 6700K:
  http://hwbot.org/submission/3384201_mr._fox_cinebench___r11.5_core_i7_6700k_11.93_points

It's only insulting to those with a chip on their shoulder. Others find it enlightening and appreciate the information. The part you are skipping over or haven't recognized is the fact that there are people who are paying more for BGA filth than my P870. If that's what they want to do, God bless 'em. If they did it because they were ignorant and thought they were getting something awesome that is junk, shame on us for letting them waste their money due to ignorance. You know, ignorance is not a sin, and it's easily cured by providing information. Being stupid is not a sin, but it is generally incurable.

Buying the best you can afford to buy without incurring a lot of debt is admirable, or if going into debt is not even an option for reasons that are private (i.e. bad credit) then it is tragic rather than admirable. I'm certainly not casting stones at anyone that sticks to a budget or wants to be frugal. I salute them. If the best a person can afford is a BGA turdbook, then they should get the best turdbook they can afford. But, they shouldn't spend more on a turdbook unless they want to look foolish and like getting screwed. Trust me, that happens... constantly. That is also tragic.

 

Please be my gest hit up my benchmark comparison (Cinbench and Wprime) vs. 6700hq. My 6700K clocked equal as 6700hq wimpy clock speed. I'm sure you will see a difference. But not in favor of the BGA chips. Even my sons 4 years old low end 4810mq kill 6700hq in benchmarks. Yeah, I know... It's sad!!
As well newest tech, Kaby mobile i7 aka 7700hq and stock clocked 7820hk loose in comparison with the 4 years old Haswell mobile 4810mq. Need I tell more?

 

If they were done on uneven testing benches, yes I would. For example, you could not accurately compare a 7700k on a stock cooler to a 6700k on a custom water loop - any result would be meaningless because the chips were not tested under the same conditions.

And this isn't me 'freaking out' or 'not understanding' your posts - this is me wanting you to not misrepresent information.

 

I really hope you know Skylake and Kaby have same IPC Same clocks for both will give same scores no matter what cooling you use. Scores will be equal if you clock 4.5/4.7 or 4.8GHz for both 7700k vs. 6700K

 

Also, nice ad hominem Fox.

By that logic I could compare a 7700k with no cooler to a 6700k with one without any issues of accuracy as long as they have the same clock speed! Since, after all, they 'will give [the] same scores no matter what cooling you use'. Because, obviously, cooling doesn't have an effect on performance and thermal throttling issues aren't a thing!

But, more seriously, if you want to claim that X performs better than Y they need to be tested on equivalent, ideally identical, platforms if you want good data.

 

There is some margin but for a detailed comparison yes, you do need to know the conditions.

For a general look at IPC if one known test is performing within expectations you can do comparisons based on that and say well it's at least as good as X.